We could build wind farms in the middle of Great Lakes and generate a LOT of power. We could build them off our coasts. The return on investment and time to return would outstrip anything that you could generate in the next 100 years for lunar energy production.
Why don't we do this. Because there are large petro-gas energy concerns that don't want it done.
Why would Bush go to the Moon for energy unless he was going to immediately privatize it for his buddies;-)
If there is money to made in space, private industry will go there all by themselves. The real welfare whores are giant corporations who want citizens to finance their operations for "our" good.
The advances in printed circuitry were a simple evolution of making things cheaper. Printing circuits via lithography is cheaper than manual intensive wiring of transistors. It's also cheaper.
From that standpoint, we should thank television before with thank the Space Program.
Finally, the people we owe the most homage to is the folks at the Home Brew computer club. These folks really kick-started the move towards personal computers. They built them and shared their innovations.
The problems in those countries were caused by the US. The problem is the precarious nature of their semi-democratic societies.
If the US was cut off from the world economy, we would be much better off. We would experience immediate inflation. But, we would also experience 100% employment.
A strong democracy and vast resources of the US produced our wealth and prosperity. That democracy created levels of wealth equality unparallelled in near history. That is what creates prosperity.
The system falls apart when wealth distribution becomes too schewed. The wealthy make investments for the sake of greed. When there is no potential return on investment, they will stop investing.
In other words, when people are too poor to buy stuff, factories close. Put another way, when the rich have all the money, they needen't bother with the poor anymore. The supply for labor far outstrips the demand. The price of labor plummets. Less consumption follows and the cycle ends in a devastating depression.
This is the lesson of the 1930s. The speculation and money traders certainly helped things along. However, the vast concentrations of wealth was the true cause of the problem. The super-wealthy already had most of the money. What could possibly be gained from investing?????
This is what supply side econ leads to. It did so in the early part of this century. It is leading us their right now. We are bartering away are freedoms through WTO and NAFTA. We are spiralling back towards the bottom as wages fall. We are sending are machining equipment overseas to China.
This of course is the dream of the supply siders. No longer can our democracy save us when our country is dependent for basic necessities from overseas dictators (China). The Newer New Deal won't help us when are defense intrests are heavily sub-contracted in China.
When mega corporations hold all the cards, including democratic institutions, depression will be perpetual. Autocracy will reign.
I would love for Bush to announce this as well. It will show him as being the absolute waster of money once and for all. Everyone will have a field day with him.
Don't expect his congressional delegation to go along with this nonsense. They are nervous enough already with the Billions spent on Iraq.
Not in my experience. They're the ones that only charge.50 per transaction on their machines. Checking and savings are FREE. Interest on both are higher.
There is a simple reason. The members of the Credit Union collectively OWN the Credit Union. Depositing to a credit union means buying shares. When there is more money left over, it goes back to the shareholders... YOU.
Also, note that this post is on-topic. We are talking about the politics of the U.S. government spending billions of money it doesn't have to send people to the moon. Others have characterized this as intended to be a distraction from the serious problems the present U.S. government administration has caused.
One trillion for the moon????
Bush simply needs a topper for spending $200 billion on sending men to Iraq;-)
Murkwood was under seige by dark forces. Indeed the spirit of Sauron was dwelling there.
So they indeed had reason to be prickly. The fighting for Smaug's treasure is completely out of character for elves. The only explanation I would have is that Smaug had stolen many things from the elves that lay in Lonely Mountain. They may have considered some of those items their birthright.
The other explanation is that they may have known that one or more of the seven was in Lonely Mountain. The elves didn't trust the dwarves. Among the 3 elf lords, the lord of Murkwood did not hold one of the three*. That ring (fire) went to Gandalf. Retrieving one (or more) of the seven may be seen as fighting for stature.
Is it merely coincidence that the elf tribe who did NOT possess a ring of power are not masters of their own wood.
* Elrond held the ring of water. Galadriel held the ring of air.**
** That's odd that Tolkien would choose three of the 4 primary elements for the elven rings. A ring of earth is missing. Perhaps the seven of the dwarves collectively represent the earth since dwarves prefer living underground.
Gandalf doesn't age. He isn't mortal. He was sent to middle earth in the state he currently is.
The idea of making the Wizards appear as old men is proportional to their role. They supposed to be advisers, not warriors. They are sheperds to the peoples of middle earth.
You may have noticed that when called upon, Gandalf is a bad-ass with a blade. He is stronger and faster then any human. He just looks old, thats all.
I think we will get used to it since we're only two movies in. But "The Hobbit" is kinda a tag line to Lord of the Rings.
I don't imagine that a "King Kong" remake would take nearly as long as something like Lord of the Rings. Though, knowing Jackson he probably cares a lot about the project and will put nearly as much effort into it.
Give the guy a break. He's effectively been living in Middle Earth for the past 5 years. A little time in the 20th century will do him good before he returns to "The Hobbit".
I think that Chris Tolkien needs to compare the other Tolkien adaptations for perspective.
Some people may think that Jackson's trilogy is a hack. What on god's earth would that make the cartoon versions: Lord of the Rings and Return of the King.
They left out a VERY cool concept with the Balrog. The idea was that the Balrog's body was essentially flame. After the Balrog emerged from the pool, they were going to portray it as skeletal and smoking. On the way up the endless stair, the Balrog would regrow his flame body.
They decided to leave it out because it would have been a lot of work for very little payoff.
Another excellent lesson in GOOD adaption is Martin Scorcesee's Dracula.
Of all the Dracula movies I've seen it is by far the most accurate adaptation. It also is VERY inaccurate as far as following the letter of Braham Stoker's novel. I thought the movie was better.
I also thought that merging Stoker's other great creation "The Mummy" with Dracula was a stroke of genius. The book never explained WHY Dracula wanted to come to London. The connection with the historical crusader Prince Vlad Tepisch is also excellent.
The journal narration of the film is accurate to it's written form. The book is told as a truncation of journal pages type-written by Mina Harker. The ultimate coup is that Scorcese explains why the love story is not included in the ultimate journal narration. Mina Harker throws her handwritten journal entries over her affair with Vlad into the sea.
The only thing I didn't like was the truncation of Harker's journey to castle Dracula. There are many creepy things that happen on the way. The duration of Harker's stay ALSO seems to be truncated.
This film more than any other shows what has to be done to make a good film from an excellent novel. Lot's of chopping and a litte sprucing up.
I think this is the great thing about movie adaptations. One can read the book with an aim to see how closely the movie adaptation was. It provides a nice frame of reference.
Someday I will get around to reading "The Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Dammed". My friends told me it was butchery of the highest order. But see I'm interested in it now.
Think of the movie as a preview to the book. It sells someone on reading the material and getting ALL the details. I'm sure that the Harry Potter movies have only increased readership in the books. I've read (I'm 32) books 3-4 because I wanted to see what happens to Harry afterward (Order of the Phoenix was LONG!!!!). I'll probably read one and two eventually. Most likely, I'll re-read Prisoner of Azkaban before seeing the movie in the spring.
After I saw "The Two Towers" in the theatre, I got the sense that Jackson took out too much stuff that Tolkien wrote. That would be fine if he hadn't put in so much stuff that wasn't their. I had just re-read the trilogy so I had certain expectations.
After watching "The Two Towers: Extended Edition" I got a different sense. They left out some material that explained why Jackson put stuff in. The Appendices are also VERY revealing as to WHY they changed the encounter with Faramir so radically.
A modern editor would likely instruct a novelist to modify the whole encoutner with Faramir. It works for the book because it's easier to gloss over such narration heavy episodes.
In a movie, anything included MUST have a purpose. Faramir is a connection to Gondor in the Two Towers. That introduction MUST be substantial enough to support the whole event.
Also, the fact that Faramir completley rejects the ring does set him apart from his brother and father in the book. However, in a movie we aren't privy to all the heavy narration about the nature of the ring.
Farimir's actions doesn't help in the movie because it confuses the nature of the ring. We have to learn about the Ring largely through events and the actions of the characters.
In the book, we learn little of Faramir, little of the Ring and little of Gondor from the whole Ithilien episode. The book sets up the Gondor situation with Dialogue between Aragorn, Legalos, Gimli and Gandalf. I've heard people say that the Two Towers is a book about "Walking and Talking" and "Talking about Walking". Personally, the book was my favorite of the three but I also realize that a DIRECT translation would make a BORING movie.
I strongly encourage all the Two Towers purist detractors to buy/rent the special edition. Watch all the appendices. You will understand why certain decisions were made by the filmakers. You will likely find yourself nodding in agreemant.
Of course if you disagree, you could always write your OWN script. Go ahead and shoot an animatic of it and see how well it flows. You'll find it would be about as boring as a home movie.
I would handle this by making Pippin and Merry the narrators. They would be telling the tale to hobbit children (the movie would open with the scouring of the shire, then the kids would ask to tell the story about Bilbo).
During the story they would flash back to Merry and Pippin squabbling about the details. In some cases they would show Merry's version and Pippin's version. Sometime more childlike sometimes more gruesome.
What would be 100% essential is to show how Bilbo initially hid the nature of the Ring from readers. He kept a separate copy of "Their and Back Again" for his own uses. Basically, one would tell the "redacted" version. The other would counter "you should tell them the real story", etc....
The interaction of the narrators with the Hobbit children would be what made the tale magical. Different narrators would portray the Orcs(Goblins) in different ways. That would show up in the screen.
What is certain is that the terrible caricature of the Murkwood elves from the Cartoon would have to go. Merry and Pippin's experiences with Legalos would make their impressions of those elves very clear.
I'm actually really anxious to see an organic, zoological dragon come to the screen.
On the Two Towers special edition there is an interesting bit about some contention that went on between the Tolkien artists and some zoological consultants. The artists wanted the elbow joints of the Black Rider's flying steeds to have claws. The zoologists countered that that would be non-functional. The artists didn't care, it looked cool.
I like the approach that hollywood is using now in studying zoology and kinesiology to create unrealistic creatures that could possibly be real.
As it was the Black flyers looked like flying lizards. But you did get a sense that such a creature could possibly exist with some exotic material biology (strong, light bones and muscles).
I see the dragon Smaug as a creature that flies in a similiar way to a Terasaur. Like all flying creatures the arms become wings. An organic dragon would NOT have a set of wings independent of it's arms.
Rather it would have a three hinged wing. The thumb and two primary fingers would sit at the second hinge and act as normal hands when not in flight. Three additional hyper enlongated fingers would fold the wing back into the elbow.
In a standing position, Smaug would run like a bi-ped dinasaur. Arms and claws would behave normally except it would look like he was wearing a cloak from the foaled wings.
Smaug would need a running, leaping start in order to get into the air. A leap and would accompany an hard down stroke whereby the wings would unfold.
Smaug would also be capable of a gallop on all fours. The gallop would be contrary to a normal four legged animal. Because of the wings, the rear legs would pass within the wing legs. The wings would partially unfurl so that air pressure would also be used to propel Smaug forward. Smuag in full gallup would give the appearance of a rippling chinese dragon.
Of course the rear feet would be usable as Talons the way an eagle or hawks are. During flight the hands would be useless.
I imagine Smaug bounding up the side of Lonely Mountain on all fours and launching into the air before heading down to Laketown.
During Smaugs encounter will Bilbo, he would alternate between walking on all fours (for sniffing) and walking on two legs. He would thrash through is horde a little bit pick things up, throw things.
Smaug's scales should ruffle like feathers. This would give one the idea that this creature is truly birdlike. It would also make some unique configurations of scale plumage possible.
I look forward to seeing Smaug on the screen if they take a zoological approach. Remember, there is no "magic" persee in Middle Earth. Only higher arts crafts.
Actually, technically it's not "better" nutrition so much as it is MORE nutrition. I suppose that's the American way. Eat lots of stuff to get nutrition. Shit out the rest;-)
They could probably take stuff out of the Silmarillion and do movies on bits and pieces.
The fall of Numenor would probably be a good tale. They could tie Elrond into that line. The fact is that Elrond is a great, great, great......... uncle of Aragorn. Aragorn and Arwen are technically very distant cousins.
I imagine they can take one of those trolls off the Gates of Bara-Dur and put hair on him.
I'm kinda curious though if it would be feasible to do motion capture using a real ape. It would have to be a female of course (a male would pummel anyone trying to glue ping-pong balls to it).
It would make for super acurrate motions as to how an ape should move. Though, I thought the folks on "Planet of the Apes" did a spectacular job of getting their actors to move like Apes.
Slashdot Mirror
We could build wind farms in the middle of Great Lakes and generate a LOT of power. We could build them off our coasts. The return on investment and time to return would outstrip anything that you could generate in the next 100 years for lunar energy production.
;-)
Why don't we do this. Because there are large petro-gas energy concerns that don't want it done.
Why would Bush go to the Moon for energy unless he was going to immediately privatize it for his buddies
If there is money to made in space, private industry will go there all by themselves. The real welfare whores are giant corporations who want citizens to finance their operations for "our" good.
No,
The advances in printed circuitry were a simple evolution of making things cheaper. Printing circuits via lithography is cheaper than manual intensive wiring of transistors. It's also cheaper.
From that standpoint, we should thank television before with thank the Space Program.
Finally, the people we owe the most homage to is the folks at the Home Brew computer club. These folks really kick-started the move towards personal computers. They built them and shared their innovations.
The problems in those countries were caused by the US. The problem is the precarious nature of their semi-democratic societies.
If the US was cut off from the world economy, we would be much better off. We would experience immediate inflation. But, we would also experience 100% employment.
A strong democracy and vast resources of the US produced our wealth and prosperity. That democracy created levels of wealth equality unparallelled in near history. That is what creates prosperity.
The system falls apart when wealth distribution becomes too schewed. The wealthy make investments for the sake of greed. When there is no potential return on investment, they will stop investing.
In other words, when people are too poor to buy stuff, factories close. Put another way, when the rich have all the money, they needen't bother with the poor anymore. The supply for labor far outstrips the demand. The price of labor plummets. Less consumption follows and the cycle ends in a devastating depression.
This is the lesson of the 1930s. The speculation and money traders certainly helped things along. However, the vast concentrations of wealth was the true cause of the problem. The super-wealthy already had most of the money. What could possibly be gained from investing?????
This is what supply side econ leads to. It did so in the early part of this century. It is leading us their right now. We are bartering away are freedoms through WTO and NAFTA. We are spiralling back towards the bottom as wages fall. We are sending are machining equipment overseas to China.
This of course is the dream of the supply siders. No longer can our democracy save us when our country is dependent for basic necessities from overseas dictators (China). The Newer New Deal won't help us when are defense intrests are heavily sub-contracted in China.
When mega corporations hold all the cards, including democratic institutions, depression will be perpetual. Autocracy will reign.
Thats just the way the Bushies would like it.
I would love for Bush to announce this as well. It will show him as being the absolute waster of money once and for all. Everyone will have a field day with him.
Don't expect his congressional delegation to go along with this nonsense. They are nervous enough already with the Billions spent on Iraq.
Not in my experience. They're the ones that only charge .50 per transaction on their machines. Checking and savings are FREE. Interest on both are higher.
... YOU.
There is a simple reason. The members of the Credit Union collectively OWN the Credit Union. Depositing to a credit union means buying shares. When there is more money left over, it goes back to the shareholders
No ... They rob the poor (all of them collectively) to pay the Rich. At least the theives in jail concentrate on stealing from the rich one by one.
The most profound forms of theivery are the legal variety.
You go Bill Mar. I hope to see a second season of Real Time.
Also, note that this post is on-topic. We are talking about the politics of the U.S. government spending billions of money it doesn't have to send people to the moon. Others have characterized this as intended to be a distraction from the serious problems the present U.S. government administration has caused.
;-)
One trillion for the moon????
Bush simply needs a topper for spending $200 billion on sending men to Iraq
No doubt he will pay for it with more tax cuts for the wealthy.
Pre-emptive note to supply siders: I understand the nature of your voodoo self serving theories. I just know they're a bunch of bullshit.
Murkwood was under seige by dark forces. Indeed the spirit of Sauron was dwelling there.
So they indeed had reason to be prickly. The fighting for Smaug's treasure is completely out of character for elves. The only explanation I would have is that Smaug had stolen many things from the elves that lay in Lonely Mountain. They may have considered some of those items their birthright.
The other explanation is that they may have known that one or more of the seven was in Lonely Mountain. The elves didn't trust the dwarves. Among the 3 elf lords, the lord of Murkwood did not hold one of the three*. That ring (fire) went to Gandalf. Retrieving one (or more) of the seven may be seen as fighting for stature.
Is it merely coincidence that the elf tribe who did NOT possess a ring of power are not masters of their own wood.
* Elrond held the ring of water. Galadriel held the ring of air.**
** That's odd that Tolkien would choose three of the 4 primary elements for the elven rings. A ring of earth is missing. Perhaps the seven of the dwarves collectively represent the earth since dwarves prefer living underground.
Gandalf doesn't age. He isn't mortal. He was sent to middle earth in the state he currently is.
The idea of making the Wizards appear as old men is proportional to their role. They supposed to be advisers, not warriors. They are sheperds to the peoples of middle earth.
You may have noticed that when called upon, Gandalf is a bad-ass with a blade. He is stronger and faster then any human. He just looks old, thats all.
Yes, but Gandalf is an Avatar. He isn't the full being that he is in the "heavans".
I do like the connection between the Istari and the Balrog. If the Balrog is a demon, then the Wizards are effectively angels.
They could insert Gimli into the Battle of Five Armies. That is, provided Gimli was old enough at the time.
I wonder if they'd go campy and have John Rheiss-Davies portray Gloin as well.
My guess is no. He would be one of 12 dwarves in that film. He wouldn't even be the head dwarf Durin.
The ring prevents Bilbo from aging in a normal fashion. He is on "Gollum Time".
Elrond IS in "The Hobbit". Rivendell is a stopover for the party.
Witness Micheal Gambden now playing Dumbledore.
I think we will get used to it since we're only two movies in. But "The Hobbit" is kinda a tag line to Lord of the Rings.
I don't imagine that a "King Kong" remake would take nearly as long as something like Lord of the Rings. Though, knowing Jackson he probably cares a lot about the project and will put nearly as much effort into it.
Give the guy a break. He's effectively been living in Middle Earth for the past 5 years. A little time in the 20th century will do him good before he returns to "The Hobbit".
I think that Chris Tolkien needs to compare the other Tolkien adaptations for perspective.
Some people may think that Jackson's trilogy is a hack. What on god's earth would that make the cartoon versions: Lord of the Rings and Return of the King.
They left out a VERY cool concept with the Balrog. The idea was that the Balrog's body was essentially flame. After the Balrog emerged from the pool, they were going to portray it as skeletal and smoking. On the way up the endless stair, the Balrog would regrow his flame body.
They decided to leave it out because it would have been a lot of work for very little payoff.
Another excellent lesson in GOOD adaption is Martin Scorcesee's Dracula.
Of all the Dracula movies I've seen it is by far the most accurate adaptation. It also is VERY inaccurate as far as following the letter of Braham Stoker's novel. I thought the movie was better.
I also thought that merging Stoker's other great creation "The Mummy" with Dracula was a stroke of genius. The book never explained WHY Dracula wanted to come to London. The connection with the historical crusader Prince Vlad Tepisch is also excellent.
The journal narration of the film is accurate to it's written form. The book is told as a truncation of journal pages type-written by Mina Harker. The ultimate coup is that Scorcese explains why the love story is not included in the ultimate journal narration. Mina Harker throws her handwritten journal entries over her affair with Vlad into the sea.
The only thing I didn't like was the truncation of Harker's journey to castle Dracula. There are many creepy things that happen on the way. The duration of Harker's stay ALSO seems to be truncated.
This film more than any other shows what has to be done to make a good film from an excellent novel. Lot's of chopping and a litte sprucing up.
I think this is the great thing about movie adaptations. One can read the book with an aim to see how closely the movie adaptation was. It provides a nice frame of reference.
Someday I will get around to reading "The Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Dammed". My friends told me it was butchery of the highest order. But see I'm interested in it now.
Think of the movie as a preview to the book. It sells someone on reading the material and getting ALL the details. I'm sure that the Harry Potter movies have only increased readership in the books. I've read (I'm 32) books 3-4 because I wanted to see what happens to Harry afterward (Order of the Phoenix was LONG!!!!). I'll probably read one and two eventually. Most likely, I'll re-read Prisoner of Azkaban before seeing the movie in the spring.
After I saw "The Two Towers" in the theatre, I got the sense that Jackson took out too much stuff that Tolkien wrote. That would be fine if he hadn't put in so much stuff that wasn't their. I had just re-read the trilogy so I had certain expectations.
After watching "The Two Towers: Extended Edition" I got a different sense. They left out some material that explained why Jackson put stuff in. The Appendices are also VERY revealing as to WHY they changed the encounter with Faramir so radically.
A modern editor would likely instruct a novelist to modify the whole encoutner with Faramir. It works for the book because it's easier to gloss over such narration heavy episodes.
In a movie, anything included MUST have a purpose. Faramir is a connection to Gondor in the Two Towers. That introduction MUST be substantial enough to support the whole event.
Also, the fact that Faramir completley rejects the ring does set him apart from his brother and father in the book. However, in a movie we aren't privy to all the heavy narration about the nature of the ring.
Farimir's actions doesn't help in the movie because it confuses the nature of the ring. We have to learn about the Ring largely through events and the actions of the characters.
In the book, we learn little of Faramir, little of the Ring and little of Gondor from the whole Ithilien episode. The book sets up the Gondor situation with Dialogue between Aragorn, Legalos, Gimli and Gandalf. I've heard people say that the Two Towers is a book about "Walking and Talking" and "Talking about Walking". Personally, the book was my favorite of the three but I also realize that a DIRECT translation would make a BORING movie.
I strongly encourage all the Two Towers purist detractors to buy/rent the special edition. Watch all the appendices. You will understand why certain decisions were made by the filmakers. You will likely find yourself nodding in agreemant.
Of course if you disagree, you could always write your OWN script. Go ahead and shoot an animatic of it and see how well it flows. You'll find it would be about as boring as a home movie.
I would handle this by making Pippin and Merry the narrators. They would be telling the tale to hobbit children (the movie would open with the scouring of the shire, then the kids would ask to tell the story about Bilbo).
During the story they would flash back to Merry and Pippin squabbling about the details. In some cases they would show Merry's version and Pippin's version. Sometime more childlike sometimes more gruesome.
What would be 100% essential is to show how Bilbo initially hid the nature of the Ring from readers. He kept a separate copy of "Their and Back Again" for his own uses. Basically, one would tell the "redacted" version. The other would counter "you should tell them the real story", etc....
The interaction of the narrators with the Hobbit children would be what made the tale magical. Different narrators would portray the Orcs(Goblins) in different ways. That would show up in the screen.
What is certain is that the terrible caricature of the Murkwood elves from the Cartoon would have to go. Merry and Pippin's experiences with Legalos would make their impressions of those elves very clear.
I'm actually really anxious to see an organic, zoological dragon come to the screen.
On the Two Towers special edition there is an interesting bit about some contention that went on between the Tolkien artists and some zoological consultants. The artists wanted the elbow joints of the Black Rider's flying steeds to have claws. The zoologists countered that that would be non-functional. The artists didn't care, it looked cool.
I like the approach that hollywood is using now in studying zoology and kinesiology to create unrealistic creatures that could possibly be real.
As it was the Black flyers looked like flying lizards. But you did get a sense that such a creature could possibly exist with some exotic material biology (strong, light bones and muscles).
I see the dragon Smaug as a creature that flies in a similiar way to a Terasaur. Like all flying creatures the arms become wings. An organic dragon would NOT have a set of wings independent of it's arms.
Rather it would have a three hinged wing. The thumb and two primary fingers would sit at the second hinge and act as normal hands when not in flight. Three additional hyper enlongated fingers would fold the wing back into the elbow.
In a standing position, Smaug would run like a bi-ped dinasaur. Arms and claws would behave normally except it would look like he was wearing a cloak from the foaled wings.
Smaug would need a running, leaping start in order to get into the air. A leap and would accompany an hard down stroke whereby the wings would unfold.
Smaug would also be capable of a gallop on all fours. The gallop would be contrary to a normal four legged animal. Because of the wings, the rear legs would pass within the wing legs. The wings would partially unfurl so that air pressure would also be used to propel Smaug forward. Smuag in full gallup would give the appearance of a rippling chinese dragon.
Of course the rear feet would be usable as Talons the way an eagle or hawks are. During flight the hands would be useless.
I imagine Smaug bounding up the side of Lonely Mountain on all fours and launching into the air before heading down to Laketown.
During Smaugs encounter will Bilbo, he would alternate between walking on all fours (for sniffing) and walking on two legs. He would thrash through is horde a little bit pick things up, throw things.
Smaug's scales should ruffle like feathers. This would give one the idea that this creature is truly birdlike. It would also make some unique configurations of scale plumage possible.
I look forward to seeing Smaug on the screen if they take a zoological approach. Remember, there is no "magic" persee in Middle Earth. Only higher arts crafts.
Better nutrition. Less childhood stress.
;-)
Actually, technically it's not "better" nutrition so much as it is MORE nutrition. I suppose that's the American way. Eat lots of stuff to get nutrition. Shit out the rest
They could probably take stuff out of the Silmarillion and do movies on bits and pieces.
......... uncle of Aragorn. Aragorn and Arwen are technically very distant cousins.
The fall of Numenor would probably be a good tale. They could tie Elrond into that line. The fact is that Elrond is a great, great, great
I imagine they can take one of those trolls off the Gates of Bara-Dur and put hair on him.
I'm kinda curious though if it would be feasible to do motion capture using a real ape. It would have to be a female of course (a male would pummel anyone trying to glue ping-pong balls to it).
It would make for super acurrate motions as to how an ape should move. Though, I thought the folks on "Planet of the Apes" did a spectacular job of getting their actors to move like Apes.